Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar @ Dabbu vs State Of U.P. And Others on 29 January, 2010
Court No. - 21

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4346 of 2010

Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar @ Dabbu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- V.P. Gupta
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Earlier on 11.08.2009, on the report submitted by Station Officer,
Dhanaura ,through Superintendent of Police, Jyotiba Phule Nagar,
order of suspension was passed and show cause notice was issued to
the petitioner. Petitioner appeared and filed his objections. The
licensing authority on 27.07.2009 considered the objection and in view
of the fact that in a criminal case being case crime No.1446 of 2008
under Sections 147,148, 149, 307, 366, 341, 426, 353, 34 and 108
I.P.C. read with Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, the
petitioner had been charge sheeted and the same had been pending
before competent court of law, proceeded to pass order that there was
no justification in passing the order of cancellation. However, it was
observed that suspension would remain in operation and further in
case orders are passed by the court concerned, the matter will be
reconsidered, and the record was consigned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in writ petition
No.45478 of 2009, Lakhpat Singh v. State of U.P. and another, this
Court by its order dated 28.08.2009 has quashed the suspension
order. Said order has been perused. It proceeds to mention that
licensing authority would be free to take any action in accordance with
law, and further on the premises that for undertaking cancellation
proceedings notices had been issued, the order of suspension could
not be passed.

Here, in the present case facts are clearly distinguishable, inasmuch
as, while proceeding to pass order dated 27.07.2009, the licensing
authority had already passed suspension order and as far as
cancellation proceedings are concerned, same were dropped.

Once this is the factual scenario, then the judgment of this Court in writ
petition No.45478 of 2009 dated 28.08.2009 will not help the petitioner.

Further under Section 18 of the Indian Arms Act, against the order
impugned , the petitioner has got statutory remedy of appeal, as such
present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Order Date :- 29.1.2010
SRY


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

14 queries in 0.140 seconds.